NBA – Collegiate & Professional Sports Law Bloghttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 15:27:25 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9‘One and Done’ May Soon Be DONE!https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/collegiate-sports/one-and-done-may-soon-be-done/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/collegiate-sports/one-and-done-may-soon-be-done/#respondMon, 22 Oct 2018 16:39:06 +0000https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1614The controversial NBA rule that keeps basketball players from beginning their professional careers until they’ve completed one year of college play may soon be history. The NBA has formally announced that “elite” 18-year-old basketball players will be able to move forward with their professional careers beginning with the 2019-20 season, skipping the current mandate that...… Continue Reading

]]>The controversial NBA rule that keeps basketball players from beginning their professional careers until they’ve completed one year of college play may soon be history.

The NBA has formally announced that “elite” 18-year-old basketball players will be able to move forward with their professional careers beginning with the 2019-20 season, skipping the current mandate that they play one year of college basketball before being eligible to be selected in the NBA draft.

Beginning 2019, selected “elite” players who turn 18 by September 15th prior to the start of the season would become eligible to sign a “select contract” with the G League, the NBA’s player development league. They would play for a year and earn $125,000 before entering the NBA draft, in lieu of playing at the collegiate level for one year without earning any income.

Future NBA Hall of Famer Moses Malone was the first to go directly from high school to play in the professional ranks. In 1974, Malone become a star in the American Basketball Association. Two years later, Darryl Dawkins and Bill Willoughby went straight from high school courts to the NBA. Then, after a 20-year hiatus, the NBA experienced a resurgence of high school players going directly to the NBA with such future stars as Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James.

In 2005, after much criticism over the players’ physical and mental preparedness and many failed efforts by high school players in the NBA, the league and the players association instituted a minimum age of 19 for eligibility to play in the league. David Stern, the commissioner at the time, had proposed a league entry age limit of 20, but agreed to 19 during collective bargaining negotiations.

The most recent collective bargaining agreement, covering the 2017-18 season through the 2023-24 season, states:

-All drafted players must be at least 19 years old during the calendar year of the draft. TO determine whether a player is eligible for a given year’s draft, subtract 19 from the year of the draft. If the player was born during or before that year, he is eligible.

-In addition, any player who is not an “international player” as defined in the collective bargaining agreement, must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class. The one year out of high school requirement is in addition to the age requirement.

The “one and done” rule has created a group of athletes who essentially are forced to delay their professional careers while electing to attend one year of college. In fact, eight of the top nine picks in the latest summer’s draft spent only one year in college.

The league has promised that players would receive training in basketball as well as in “life skills” as part of the G League program. It didn’t disclose how many players would be invited into the program, but the G League said it would be “a very specific group of elite players.”

In addition to receiving compensation for their basketball skills and performance,

these “elite” players would be able to hire agents and accept sponsorship money for shoe and apparel endorsements, which they are currently barred from receiving as amateurs playing in college.

Commenting on the announcement, NCAA president Mark Emmert stated, “We appreciate the NBA’s decision to provide additional opportunities for those who would like to pursue their dream of playing professionally …. Obtaining a college education continues to provide unmatched preparation for success in life for the majority of student-athletes and remains an excellent path to professional sports for many. However, this change provides another option for those who would prefer not to attend college but want to directly pursue professional basketball.”

The formal end to the one and done rule appears imminent. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is behind the move and current negotiations between the NBA and its players association anticipate elimination during the current collective bargaining agreement and before the 2022 draft.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/collegiate-sports/one-and-done-may-soon-be-done/feed/0Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Banning States from Legalizing Sports Gamblinghttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-strikes-down-law-banning-states-from-legalizing-sports-gambling/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/uncategorized/supreme-court-strikes-down-law-banning-states-from-legalizing-sports-gambling/#respondMon, 14 May 2018 17:56:37 +0000https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1580The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the federal law known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) that bans states from permitting gambling on sporting events. Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., No. 16-476 (May 14, 2018). This decision effectively ends Nevada’s long-time monopoly in this arena and opens the...… Continue Reading

]]>The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the federal law known as the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA) that bans states from permitting gambling on sporting events. Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., No. 16-476 (May 14, 2018).

This decision effectively ends Nevada’s long-time monopoly in this arena and opens the floodgates for states to pass their own legislation regarding sports wagering.

The original action spent close to eight years winding its way through federal courts before landing before the Court. New Jersey challenged the constitutionality of PASPA, alleging the law violated the Tenth Amendment by “commanding” the states to act (or not act) in a certain way. This, New Jersey argued, violated the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle and encroached on the goals of public policy, which have generally favored allowing the states to legislate, free of federal interference and constraint.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court majority, explained the problem with PASPA is that “state legislatures are put under the direct control of Congress.” He continued, moreover, that “[a] more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.”

States around the country have been hoping to receive a cut of the nearly $150 billion that Americans spend on illegal sports wagering each year. States also stand to gain by taxing sports gambling in a variety of ways. Numerous states have been prepared to launch sports gambling legislation in the event of a favorable decision. Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey, in particular, stated that New Jersey would be ready to act “sooner than later.”

Still unclear is the effect the decision will have on major sports leagues and organizations such as the NFL, MLB, and NCAA. In the past, the leagues have taken positions opposing legalized sports wagering. However, as of late, many prominent sporting organizations, led by the NBA and Commissioner Adam Silver, have expressed support for sports gambling and the positive effects it might have on professional and amateur sports across the nation.

This support, of course, comes with the caveat that the NBA, NFL, and others want a “seat at the table.” For example, Commissioners Robert Manfred and Roger Goodell of the MLB and NFL (respectively) have indicated that gambling laws should preserve the “integrity” of their sports. When discussing a pro-sports gambling law proposed in West Virginia, Manfred stated, “[The MLB is] not opposed to the idea of West Virginia passing a sports betting bill . . .. We’d just like them to pass one that creates a framework that protects the integrity, recognizes the variety of interests at play here and quite frankly puts the state in a position to maximize the revenue return from it.”

Expect leagues to lobby both the states and Congress to adopt gambling legislation assuring them some form of control over wagering and permitting them a revenue stream from bets placed and payouts awarded.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor the progress of state and federal gambling legislation and keep you updated with any and all developments. If you have any questions, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.

]]>The National Labor Relations Board has found the individuals who produce electronic content for viewing during professional basketball games are employees, rather than independent contractors. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball, LP, 365 NLRB No. 124 (2017). The Board reversed the decision of an NLRB regional director and reinstated a representation petition filed by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

The 2-1 Board majority held the employer failed in its burden of proving independent contractor status. The Board pointed out that “the crewmembers work for the Employer at times and locations determined and provided by the Employer, using tools, equipment, and supplies that, almost with exception, the Employer provides.” NLRB Chairman Philip Miscimarra dissented. As Miscimarra soon will be in the majority with two new NLRB members holding a pro-employer view, replacing the 2-1 pro-union bent of the current NLRB, the possibility that a similar case may be decided differently cannot be dismissed.

In this case, the crewmembers included camera operators, replay operators, engineers, computer operators, audio/tape operators, and other technical and utility workers. Sixteen crewmembers work each game. Crewmembers volunteer for a “roster” (51 names on the most current roster) and identify the games they are available to work. The employer assigns the roster crewmembers for each game and decides what position each will fill. The employer sets the start time of work, requires crewmembers to find a replacement if they cannot work as assigned, determines compensation, provides nearly all equipment, and scripts production work before the game. “Live calls” regarding specific assignments during games are made by a crewmember. Many of the crewmembers work season after season.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, independent contractor status is determined by common law agency criteria, with no one factor controlling. The NLRB also will consider whether the entrepreneurial endeavor of the putative independent contractor is real or theoretical.

The common law agency criteria include:

the extent of control by the employer over the individual’s work;

whether the individual is engaged in a business;

the degree of supervision by the employer over the work performed;

the skills required;

who provides necessary tools, equipment, and place of work;

duration of employment;

method of payment;

whether the work is part of the employer’s regular business;

whether the parties believe an independent contractor relationship exists; and

whether the individual operates an separate business.

The Board found that some factors favored employee status, while others were inconclusive; none were found to support independent contractor status. It explained, however, that “the Employer … exerts much more significant control than the Regional Director acknowledged over … [the crewmembers’] work and the circumstances under which it is performed.” It also noted that “the crewmembers enjoy neither a proprietary interest in their work nor a voice in any important business decisions.”

Since independent contractor cases are inherently fact-specific, employers who pay non-employees to perform services for the business should review the relationship against the common law agency standards to assess compliance with several employment law standards (beyond labor law).

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/nba/nlrb-finds-sports-teams-electronic-content-workers-as-employees-eligible-to-unionize/feed/0Visa Options For Athleteshttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/immigration/1528/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/immigration/1528/#respondWed, 07 Jun 2017 05:26:12 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1528In these days of “extreme vetting,” entering the United States as a business visitor (B visa or Visa Waiver status, with an ESTA approval) can have its hazards – especially for athletes who need to enter the United States quickly and have no time to spare. [Link to blog on extreme vetting: http://www.globalimmigrationblog.com/2017/05/state-department-proposes-supplemental-questions-for-visa-applicants/ ] Earlier this...… Continue Reading

Enhanced security screening is not the only issue. The Trump Administration also wants to ensure that individuals are not circumventing immigration processes and inappropriately entering in visitor status.

For a professional athlete to enter successfully as a business visitor:

The entry must be for a specific, limited time (up to 90 days for Visa Waiver and up to 180 days for B-1/B-2 entries);

The individual must have sufficient funds to cover expenses during the stay;

The individual must prove ties abroad and have a residence outside of the U.S. he or she has no intention of abandoning; and

Except in limited circumstances, the foreign national should receive no U.S. remuneration (other than reasonable expenses).

Prize money is an exception to the “no U.S. remuneration” rule. According the Foreign Affairs Manual, “professional athletes such as golfers and auto racers, who receive no salary or payment other than prize money for . . . participation in a tournament or sporting event” may enter in business visitor status. The same holds true for athletes or team members who seek to enter to compete with another sports team, provided:

The foreign athlete or team have their principal place of business or activity in a foreign country;

The income of the foreign-based team and the salary of its players are principally accrued in a foreign country; and

An athlete also can enter as a business visitor to try out for a professional team and individuals who are a “normal and necessary component of the athlete’s entourage,” such as caddies or racing car mechanics, may enter as visitors (and continue to be paid by the athlete), as long as the individual is:

Customarily employed by the athlete (not just hired for the particular U.S. tournament or tour); and

The athlete is receiving no payment other than possible prize money.

Athletes entering the U.S. for a tournament, but who also have valuable U.S. endorsement deals, should consider applying for a P visa to avoid having the remuneration they receive for the endorsements not fit the “prize money” exception.

To qualify for a P visa, the athlete must provide proof of having an “internationally recognized reputation in the sport.”

USCIS statistics released in response to a FOIA request reveal that in 2016, the California Service Center had an 88% approval rate for P visas and the Vermont Service Center had a 90% approval rate. Both California and Vermont had about a 22% Request for Evidence rate. (Vermont Premium Processing had a slightly lower 17% rate.) In California, the after-RFE-approval rate was 46% for regular processing and 65% for premium processing. In Vermont, the after-RFE-approval rate was 28% for regular processing and 75% for premium processing.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/immigration/1528/feed/0Texas Spotlights Transgender Athlete Issues as Bill Progresses in Legislaturehttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/gender-issues/texas-spotlights-transgender-athlete-issues-as-bill-progresses-in-legislature/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/gender-issues/texas-spotlights-transgender-athlete-issues-as-bill-progresses-in-legislature/#respondFri, 17 Mar 2017 00:08:18 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1486The Texas University Interscholastic League’s constitution requires that student-athletes compete according to the gender on their birth certificate. In February, a 17-year-old transgender male was required to wrestle against females, despite his preference to compete in the boys’ league. He went on to win the Class 6A 110-pound girls’state championship in Texas high school wrestling...… Continue Reading

]]>The Texas University Interscholastic League’s constitution requires that student-athletes compete according to the gender on their birth certificate. In February, a 17-year-old transgender male was required to wrestle against females, despite his preference to compete in the boys’ league. He went on to win the Class 6A 110-pound girls’state championship in Texas high school wrestling to both criticism and support.

In a 21-10 vote, the Texas Senate has approved the controversial SB6, commonly known as the “bathroom bill.”

SB6 would not only require that all Texans use the bathroom matching the sex on their birth certificates in public schools and government buildings, it also would prohibit local governments from enacting anti-discrimination ordinances on the same issue.

This move comes on the heels of President Donald Trump’s decision to reverse the Obama Administration’s May 2016 guidance providing that Title IX protects the right of transgender students in public schools to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding with their gender identity.

If SB6 becomes law, Texas may be faced with opposition similar to that seen in North Carolina after that state’s controversial HB2 “bathroom bill” was passed into law in 2016.

The NBA, ACC, and NCAA have moved several lucrative events out of North Carolina, and this trend may continue as the North Carolina Sports Association has reported that the NCAA has threatened to pull the state’s bids for all major events through 2022. This could result in severe financial losses for the state.

The NFL and NBA have warned that Texas may be jeopardizing its chances at hosting future events should SB6 become law. Since 2004, Texas hosted three NBA All-Star Games and three Super Bowls – including Super Bowl LI played at Houston’s NRG Stadium between the New England Patriots and the Atlanta Falcons. While the NFL’s stance does not affect the state’s chances of hosting a Super Bowl in the near future since sites have been selected through 2021, none of which are in Texas, the same cannot be said for Texas landing the 2020 or 2021 NBA All-Star Games for which Houston has been considered a frontrunner.

Sports leagues have come down hard on North Carolina for passing its “bathroom bill.” Texas may expect the same treatment if SB6 is passed.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/gender-issues/texas-spotlights-transgender-athlete-issues-as-bill-progresses-in-legislature/feed/0The Potential Trump Effect On The Sports Worldhttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/mlb/the-potential-trump-effect-on-the-sports-world/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/mlb/the-potential-trump-effect-on-the-sports-world/#respondFri, 11 Nov 2016 17:21:05 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1470While the nation and the world react to the victory of President-elect Donald Trump and theorize what his impending presidency will mean for national policy, the world of sports is not immune from similar meditation. The international nature of professional and collegiate sports has continued to grow during the early portion of this millennium and...… Continue Reading

]]>While the nation and the world react to the victory of President-elect Donald Trump and theorize what his impending presidency will mean for national policy, the world of sports is not immune from similar meditation.

The international nature of professional and collegiate sports has continued to grow during the early portion of this millennium and the momentum from international events such as NFL contests in London, NBA games, and NCAA contests in China and potential Major League Baseball contests in Cuba and Mexico might be affected by a Trump presidency.

As world leaders react to the new order in American politics, numerous international events and the awarding of the cities to host those events are under consideration.

The early portion of the Trump presidency and its initial policy decisions on immigration issues and the proposed revamping of trade policy could directly affect the International Olympic Committee’s decision the United States’ bid to host the 2024 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.

While the bid is receiving strong competition from rival Paris, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has acknowledged that IOC members have concerns about Trump. Garcetti stated, “An America that turns inward,…isn’t good for world peace, isn’t good for progress and isn’t good for all of us.” The 2024 Olympic Games decision will be made in September 2017.

The awarding of the 2026 World Cup for soccer is also approaching. While FIFA, the international governing body, has discussed potential expansion of the World Cup competition to 40 or 48 countries, many have stated that the United States either may host or co-host the event with Canada or Mexico. Will President-elect Trump’s campaign pledge to erect a wall along the U.S.- Mexico border and deport illegal immigrants affect international relations? Will FIFA’s leadership to avoid potential international reaction to awarding the United States the event? The President-elect said on election night, “We [the United States] will get along with all other countries, willing to get along with us.”

Additionally, President-elect Trump’s forthcoming trade initiatives may also affect professional sports leagues and their franchises.

Will President-elect Trump revoke many of the trade agreements that exist under the current administration? Will he enact severe tariffs on internationally manufactured goods that are imported in the United States? The answers could directly affect the global ambitions of the NFL, the NBA, and Major League Baseball.

While the commissioners of these major American sports have plans for the expansion of their sports overseas, with potential international franchises and more international games being held in cities such as London, Barcelona, Mexico City, Berlin and Shanghai, the potential imposition of proposed 45% tariffs affect how willing the international community would allow United States professional sports franchises to benefit at their expense.

Like the world’s leaders, the world of sports is waiting to see what impact a Trump presidency will have on their future goals and objectives.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/mlb/the-potential-trump-effect-on-the-sports-world/feed/0MLB Looks For A Strike Out In Stadium Safety Casehttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/mlb/mlb-asks-for-a-strike-out-for-stadium-safety-case/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/mlb/mlb-asks-for-a-strike-out-for-stadium-safety-case/#respondThu, 08 Sep 2016 00:32:12 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1454Major League Baseball has asked a California federal court to dismiss a proposed class action claim that accuses the league of failing to sufficiently protect spectators with safety netting. Brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Gail Payne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al., 4:15-cv-03229,...… Continue Reading

]]>Major League Baseball has asked a California federal court to dismiss a proposed class action claim that accuses the league of failing to sufficiently protect spectators with safety netting. Brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Gail Payne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al., 4:15-cv-03229, names the MLB, Commissioner Rob Manfred, and all 30 teams as defendants.

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants are engaging in negligence, misrepresentations, and exposing the spectators of the sport to personal injury . The claim also states that the putative class is afraid for their safety and, as a result, cannot enjoy the games as much. The class points to a Ninth Circuit decision holding that fear or anxiety of future harm is enough to establish injury-in-fact.

Thus far, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate standing to bring these claims because they are struggling to prove imminent danger of injury.

In response, MLB argued that the injury rate per ticket is far below one percent and, therefore, the chance of injury is extremely small. MLB argued that fear is not enough to establish standing because the putative class members have failed to demonstrate an imminent danger of injury. Additionally, all fans have the option to purchase seats behind foul ball nets or a seat that is not in the range of foul balls. Either way, MLB argued, the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a certain impending injury.

The issue of spectator safety at professional sporting events is not a new one for litigation. Previous litigation, however, has set the bar for spectator recovery for injury extremely high. For example, in 2002 a 13-year-old girl was struck and killed by a puck while attending a hockey game. Even in such an extreme case, the team and the NHL were not held liable for her injury or death.

Since fans at sporting events are aware that they could be injured, this knowledge generally absolves the teams, arenas, and leagues of any legal liability.

More often than not, arenas will announce prior to a game starting, provide warnings on tickets, and put up nets to warn spectators about errant balls, pucks, bats, and the like. It appears that so long as teams, arenas, and leagues continue to warn spectators, they will not be found liable for spectator injury anytime soon.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/mlb/mlb-asks-for-a-strike-out-for-stadium-safety-case/feed/0Uniform Law Commission Approves Changes to Uniform Athlete Agents Acthttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/nfl/uniform-law-commission-approves-changes-to-uniform-athlete-agents-act/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/nfl/uniform-law-commission-approves-changes-to-uniform-athlete-agents-act/#respondSat, 25 Jul 2015 01:02:24 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1347The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) has approved significant changes to the Uniform Athlete Agents Act (UAA) at its recent annual meeting. The UAA, first adopted in 2000, has been enacted in 40 states, as well as the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Laws similar to the UAA have been enacted by several...… Continue Reading

The UAA, first adopted in 2000, has been enacted in 40 states, as well as the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Laws similar to the UAA have been enacted by several states including California, Michigan, and Ohio.

The revisions address allegations of improper conduct by agents in their pursuit and representation of college athletes. As states began considering non-uniform amendments to the UAA to address these issues, the ULC decided to revise the UAA.

Most notably, the UAA will have a broader definition of who qualifies as an agent. The 2000 UAA regulates sports agents but generally exempted financial advisers and other potential service providers to student athletes. The UAA now will regulate financial advisers who offer gifts or money to student-athletes in the hope of securing their business when they turn professional. In addition to traditional sports agents, the UAA will cover any individual who provides consideration to a student-athlete in anticipation of serving the athlete in an advisory capacity on matters related to finances, business pursuits, or career management decisions; or managing business affairs for the athlete by providing assistance with bills, payments, contracts, or taxes. Accordingly, service providers that come under the definition of “agent” will now be subjected to the criminal and civil penalties under the applicable state’s version of the UAA.

The revised UAA also recommends maximum civil penalties for violations be increased from $25,000 to $50,000, although UAA generally leaves it to each state to determine whether a violation is a felony or a misdemeanor. The ULC had considered revising the applicable penalties, but decided against that because most states follow the penalties outlined in the 2000 UAA.

The revised UAA also imposes additional notification requirements for agents, requiring them to inform schools before contacting student-athletes and those close to student-athletes. Agents must notify institutions of a pre-existing relationship with a student-athlete who is on an athletic scholarship. Moreover, the definition of “educational institution” now includes schools from elementary through college.

The revised UAA also provides for enhanced reciprocity in agent registration and includes an alternate provision that contemplates a multistate agency that would manage the registration process. The multistate registration agency could take effect if at least five states join.

The revisions also strengthen the UAA’s ability to bar sports agents from illegally luring college athletes into contracts. For example, the UAA requires that agency contracts be accompanied by a separate record signed by the student-athlete acknowledging that signing the contract may result in a loss of eligibility. The contract also must contain a statement that the agent is registered in the state where the contract is signed.

States may begin adopting the revised UAA in the coming year. The form of the UAA followed has significant implications on the practice of agents within each state, as well as the practice of any individual who provides, or contemplates providing, any services to a student-athlete. It will be important to know which states follow the current UAA, the 2000 UAA, a state-amended version of the 2000 UAA, or some other statutory mechanism to regulate agents.

]]>https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/nfl/uniform-law-commission-approves-changes-to-uniform-athlete-agents-act/feed/0The Top Five Immigration Mistakes Made By Foreign Athleteshttps://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/immigration/the-top-five-immigration-mistakes-made-by-foreign-athletes/
https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/immigration/the-top-five-immigration-mistakes-made-by-foreign-athletes/#respondMon, 02 Mar 2015 17:55:37 +0000http://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/?p=1310In 2014, opening day rosters in the National Basketball Association listed 101 players born outside the United States, Major League Baseball boasted 224 players from countries such as Japan, Korea, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, Cuba, and Mexico, not to mention the many players from other countries in the National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, and...… Continue Reading

]]>In 2014, opening day rosters in the National Basketball Association listed 101 players born outside the United States, Major League Baseball boasted 224 players from countries such as Japan, Korea, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, Cuba, and Mexico, not to mention the many players from other countries in the National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, and the developmental leagues of all of these major sports. As the world of sports continues to become more global, immigration has become even more essential to our professional sports leagues.

The five most common misunderstandings foreign professional athletes have about their immigration status include:

1) Careers are Short and So Are Grounds for Permanent Residence : Players who no longer compete at the highest level in their sports will be unable to obtain permanent residence based upon their abilities. Players no longer playing in their sport will be denied permanent residence for failure to demonstrate the continued ability in their area of extraordinary ability. Similarly, players often are only one bad season or injury away from losing their ability to remain in the U.S. on temporary visas. Therefore, they should consider filing for permanent residence early in their careers.

2) Family Matters, but Working is Another Matter: Families of foreign professional athletes cannot work in the United States unless they have their own basis for work authorization. By filing for permanent residence, however, the families of players can start businesses, seek employment, and have greater travel flexibility. Also, players who eventually become citizens can immediately petition to have parents join them in the United States.

3) Income Flexibility is Not Player’s Lot: Immigrant athletes generally can work only for a single employer. Other active business interests fall outside their authorized status. However, by obtaining permanent residence, the player is free to pursue business and employment opportunities like any other U.S. citizen.

4) Traveling with Ease May Have to Wait : U.S. immigration works on a series of complicated visas categories that often require several filings with the USCIS and DOS Visa limitations cause confusion and delay. Permanent residence, however, frees players from the burden of those filings and allows them to enter the United States faster and with less inspection by border officers.

5) Higher Standard of Behavior Is Expected: Immigration is a civil, rather than criminal, issue. Minor criminal issues or immigration violations can result in the denial of a visa or permanent residence for a player or family member. Immigrants are held to a higher standard. Issues that might result in a monetary fine for a U.S. citizen or permanent resident could mean a permanent bar or removal from the United States for an immigrant.

Working with experience immigration counsel can help players reduce the risks.